Targeted Assassinations…My, How Quiet The Liberals Are

Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant cleric who was an American citizen, was killed in Yemen.

While I don’t disagree with the Administration over this policy, I find the whole situation ironic. It was just a few years ago liberals were crying and protesting all over the fact that the United States waterboarded a few high level terrorists.

But I guess it’s ok to just a put a bullet in their head rather than making them a widdle bit scared with water eh?

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

…While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens — the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example — it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holder’s remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies.

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Like I noted, I agree with the Administration.

But the hypocrisy is just mind boggling. If Bush has been suggesting these things heads would be exploding across both coasts.

Oh, one more note from the above article:

Still, the speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo — or in an account of its contents published in October by The New York Times based on descriptions by people who had read it.

30 Responses to “Targeted Assassinations…My, How Quiet The Liberals Are”

Nan G

Are these American terrorists limited to those found on foreign soil?
Or, can anyone become the designated terrorist who is killed for being a planner of, say, a so-called ”lone jihadist syndrome act?”
I mean, the NYPD was monitoring a bunch of Muslims inside the USA and some good American Muslims came out in strong support of what NYPD is doing….keeping us all safe!
Some is a relative term.
In this case, out of over 800,000 Muslims in NY (1992 numbers) – THREE DOZEN came forward to support the NYPD.
36 Muslims.
OTOH, when we had a ”gang sweep” in our neighborhood, the vast majority of people were coming out cheering.
People brought the police cookies, sodas, cards and hearty thanks.
Those same people who had to let police run their IDs for warrants, were happy and grateful.
Clean the scum off the streets and everyone (who is a good American) prospers.

Smorgasbord

Ian

Actually, if you go over to Memeorandum right now (7:15 am ET), the majority of blogs running this story are liberal ones, plus the ACLU (and since you righties think Politico is a liberal rag, we can include them, I guess). Liberals aren’t perfect on this issue, I don’t disagree, but we’re a damn sight better than you ever were with the Bush administration.

Crimson

“But the hypocrisy is just mind boggling. If Bush has been suggesting these things heads would be exploding across both coasts.”

That’s an odd claim considering that he didn’t just suggest it but carried it out and there was no such outrage.
This would ordinarily be the point where I cite that circa 2001-2009 targetted airstrike killing a US citizen suspected but not convicted of terrorism. But me needing to do that kind of proves the point.

The infrequency of this occurring combined with Coast to Coast outrage you claim would occur about it should be easy to recall, no?

Crimson

Philadelphia

In terms of what policy does one explain the public disqualification of the Fort Hood casualties from the Purple Heart because the casualties were not the result of enemy action, while sanctioning a covert military operation to kill the person who engineered the action? And all relevant actors are/were US citizens. The answer apparently is that in the public political arena we dare not name the enemy as militant islamics, but we can and do name and kill the enemy in the covert arena. I don’t have a problem with offing Alwacko, but then let’s acknowledge the Fort Hood fallen as casualties of enemy action and not victims of “workplace violence.” Many were actually deploying to combat, and the attack was a preemptive strike.

@Nan G: Are these American terrorists limited to those found on foreign soil?
Or, can anyone become the designated terrorist who is killed for being a planner of, say, a so-called ”lone jihadist syndrome act?”

Nan G, the quest is to capture or kill such enemies of the US. When they are on foreign soil, we have less ability to capture them without serious diplomatic repercussions. UBL’s raid is a perfect example, and our soldiers in Afghanistan/Pakistan are still paying the price for Obama’s lack of respect for that nation’s sovereignty… capped nicely by NATO’s inefficiency.

However what you allude to isn’t necessary, and highly unlikely to happen within our system. First, we have our own local law enforcement that would aid in the collection of intel for prosecution purposes, and capture of that same enemy who is on American soil. And just as the CIA demanded in the case of al Awlaki, they aren’t going to assassinate a US citizen as an enemy of the US – most especially on US soil – without documented opinions on Constitutional authority. We do still have some elements of checks and balances in this country, and Obama can’t be running a Chicago mafia style assassination squad without the willing assistance of other US agencies.

I don’t see that willingness by any of our agencies to do so.

I’m with Curt. I don’t disagree with targeting al Awlaki either, and it’s one of the few CiC decisions I happen to agree with. But Curt brings up an important point that those who do support this targeted assassination, yet rail against waterboarding, have either got to be partisan hypocrites, or simply dumber than dirt.

Crimson

“Did you want an “I told you so”?”

Nah, really just looking to remind people why news is generally discussed when it’s news and not when it’s not.
The title of this post is how quiet the liberals are. Glenn Greewald’s outraged series of posts about this assertion of executive power started in January 2010.
Do you want a calendar?

Nan G

Maybe what is news for posters here is not news for you.
But just YESTERDAY…..
Attorney General Eric Holder outlined the legal framework for the use of lethal force in targeted killings of Americans overseas in a major speech at Northwestern University law school.

Holder said that lethal force is legal under a Sept. 18, 2001, joint congressional resolution.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks authorizes the use of all necessary force in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.

The Obama administration has engaged in an internal debate about how much to reveal about the legal justification for the al-Awlaki killing.

At least three recently filed lawsuits have sought to force the Obama administration to publicly release its legal justification for the drone strike that killed al-Awlaki. The justification is contained in a secret Justice Department memo.~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, you and Greenwald were railing against what you did NOT know.
Now you do know.
How do you and Greenwald feel about the justifications?

Well, I can’t say I disagree one iota about this destructive and maniacal fixation on a non news story, Crimson. I tried to warn many when this cropped up originally it was a losing argument, and a distraction. Now many are paying the price for chasing their tails. Santorum had double digit leads in MI until he fixated on this, and his continued push has resulted in his loss of a double digit lead in Ohio. Now it’s veered out of the rabbit hole and into a new rabbit hole, and all effective focus on genuine issues is eclipsed.

Considering that any Republican candidate had winds at his back, they all seem willing to chase the frisbee the press and Democrats throw overboard, and laugh their posteriors off when the dogs of politics dive in to gnaw on it. I can’t believe how these guys have been suckered. First Romney’s big bucks and negatives starting in Iowa, leading to debates about every off tangent “who gives a fart” issue and personal assaults. Now dumb stuff like the contraceptives and Rush.

But on the other hand, I also consider Obama’s purchase of Volts pretty much a non story as well. First because the admin is likely to purchase a fleet from GM anyway, and secondly because it’s not surprising that Obama wants to put everyone else, except himself, in a car that no one wants to drive.

We’ve got plenty of big issues on the table. Neither of them happen to be Rush/Fluke/contraceptives by an unconstitutional federal program (that’s a right reserved to the states), or who buys out the unwanted Volts from GM.

As far as Greenwald and the silence of the left. There are some of the anti-war left, and many on the right, equally that have been whining about al Awlaki and latest Defense Appropriations Act that was enacted. However when it comes to the elected left pols, they condemn waterboarding, but apparently don’t mind assassinations. I guess it depends upon which way the winds are blowing that day, whether they like (or don’t like) the target, and what the party affiliation of the guy sitting in the Oval Office is that makes the difference.

Nan G, I will remind you of a common phrase that used to be used here… it’s called “need to know” basis. Documentation that intel agencies had on Awlaki is, in my opinion, not a “need to know” soccer ball for partisan consumption because of other information that could be revealed that would endanger our intel operatives, and our future intel.

The AUMF is the original Afghanistan authorization. That was confined more narrowly to just al Qaeda. The recent Defense Appropriations that everyone is up in arms about redefines hust who the enemy is. If the Republicans/conservatives want to add this losing battle, and expose their own hypocrisy with opposition, to their list of “important” issues like contraceptives from an unconstitutional federal mandate, and the definitions of “slut”, then I suggest we skip the election and just hand the Oval Office keys to Obama now.

Barbara Bush was right. This is a nasty campaign. But I would add that it’s an embarrassing campaign. I watch the two front runners seize on the “crisis of the day”, and all I can hear is a voice in my head that says “Get the ball, Mittens! Get the ball, Rick!… Gooooood boys”

Nan G

@MataHarley:
Mata,
I agree with the idea of ”need to know.”
But my only point was that the facts came out yesterday, making it all news, again.
This time the news is based on facts rather than supposition.
When the Left and the Right were running around about Obama and the al-Awlaki killing before yesterday they were basically going off half-cocked.
We used to execute traitors and sabatours and deserters in our nation’s past.
These latest justifications all share that common background.

johngalt

BTW the current administration claimed this right over 2 years ago and carried it out over 5 months ago.

One question Crimson; If the current admin claimed this “right” over two years ago, then what was all the hubbub about from the left regarding US civilian trials for those held in Guantanamo? I mean, if it’s ok to execute our enemies by assassination without a trial, then why wasn’t it ok to hold them alive without a trial? Explain this to me because I’m having a hard time reconciling the two situations.

Crimson

So, you and Greenwald were railing against what you did NOT know. Now you do know.

No…. it’s just you who considers this news.
That was actually the content of his article, so I’d suggest he was probably aware of it.
The Jan 2010 reporting I referenced states….

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, “it doesn’t really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,” a senior administration official said. “They are then part of the enemy.”

If I need to explain that the 2001 AUML wasn’t first cited as justification for this 9 years after 9/11 and 8 years after it was first used for killing a US citizen abroad, and I don’t even know what language I would need to communicate that in. Finger painting probably.

Crimson

One question Crimson; If the current admin claimed this “right” over two years ago, then what was all the hubbub about from the left regarding US civilian trials for those held in Guantanamo? I mean, if it’s ok to execute our enemies by assassination without a trial, then why wasn’t it ok to hold them alive without a trial? Explain this to me because I’m having a hard time reconciling the two situations.

WTF has that got to do with me?
My knowing something that happened a decade ago isn’t news today makes me liable for your education? No, just decide to read news, you’ll pick it up.

johngalt

Sorry, but it seems that you support this policy by Obama’s WH. Is this wrong?

And if you do support it, my point was that it is hypocritical of the Obama team to rail against holding suspected terrorists in Guantanamo, without trial, while promoting the execution of such people, without trial, regardless of citizenship. I asked you to explain why the hypocrisy was ok.

Crimson

Sorry, but it seems that you support this policy by Obama’s WH. Is this wrong?

No, I think it’s a terrible idea to pretend to have a President sworn to uphold a constitution, while really having a king unconstrained by it. You really can’t ask for something less up for debate than executing citizens without trial. I don’t even know what century that concept got settled. The 11th ?

But everyone already decided that was cool for King George a decade ago. The only development that involves Obama is that Bush’s term limits ran out. This is the cost of granting this executive power to the presidency while Bush was in office. You knew he had election terms, that presidents don’t hand back executive power and that nobody had guaranteed you republicans would be in office forever.
What exactly is your complaint today other than Bush’s term ran out?

You knew all this when you raised no objection originally. You knew exactly the same thing when you said it’s cool for the president to order torture or lock up people without trial or spy on citizens, no matter who is in office.

I am 100% positive exactly zero of the earth’s 7 billion inhabitants requested these powers only apply to Bush and no future presidencies. This is what that looks like. Like not being smart enough to put principles above party affiliation.

johngalt

You know, I agree with your post almost in it’s entirety. The exception is your use of “you”. If you meant “you” as the GOP, or Republican voters, in general, then I accept that, but if you meant “you”, as in me, then you clearly don’t know anything about me.

Yes, it is true that when additional power is granted to a president, the next one, and the one after that, and so on, will not give up that power willingly. My point was on the hypocrisy of the left, for condemning a similar power taken by Bush, while they are silent on the public admittance of the same general power used by Obama. If something is wrong, it shouldn’t matter who is President at the time, or who is running Congress at the time, it is wrong regardless, and a person should put just as much fervor in condemnation of the action they believe is wrong, even if “their guy” is in power.

In the OP, Curt is not even protesting the use of the power itself, merely questioning the left on their hypocrisy on it. Have there been any protests by leftist groups on this? Not that I’m aware of. And that’s the point.

As far as the policy itself under question here, it certainly didn’t start with Bush, though. Did he expand on it? To an extent, yes, he did.

And that is a real problem that occurs when partisanship overrides common sense, Constitutional knowledge, and the morality of right and wrong. Each successive President not only accepts the previous administration’s power base, but will seek to expand on it and use it to further their own ideology. And their blind supporters will support their power grabs with little concern about the next President, who may, or may not be, of the same political ideology. When it’s the “opposing” ideology, the power granted to the previous President may be used in opposition to those supporters’ political ideology, and only then do they feel the need to whine and complain about it. And yes, it happens regardless of political party.

There are, however, those of us who are conservative who truly do want a smaller, less powerful federal government. That is the real reason the TEA party got started, Crimson. We are not enamored with Big Government Republicans like Romney anymore than we are with Obama’s liberal/progressive ideology. Neither one of those will willingly give up federal government power, but instead seek to grow and expand it further. And yes, Bush was mostly a Big Government Republican as well, and many conservatives were complicit, due to their silence, on his power grabs.

I’ll say it again. If something is wrong, it shouldn’t matter who the person committing the action is, or which political ideology they subscribe to. If it is wrong, it is wrong regardless, and condemnation or protestation should be just as vehement, even if that action is done by the politician you voted for.

BTW, I think you have given me an idea for my next posted article. Thank you.

Crimson

True, this is hypocrisy. I ripped into many liberals for this back when it was news. When inauguration day meant that the same arguments bloggers had been making with such pretend outrage , suddenly weren’t an issue for them and when thrown back at them were now considered trolling.

This covered a whole was a whole gammit of things, many of which Obama showed even greater glee in employing than Bush. Citing state secrets priveledge in order to throw challenges to spying out of court for example.

The one shining example of Obama being given a pass on nothing has been from Greenwald. Day 1 he showed that he had principles that didn’t bend for party affiliation. While I generally can’t stand to read that much hysterical prose and repetition in a blog, the message of what he writes has been pretty much spot on for years.
In response, the right cites him practically never and even then, only in disagreement.

So yeah, there’s a lot on the left you could cite for hypocrisy. But that won’t include you pointing out the shining example of the standard set by those like Greenwald as what they should be doing, because you don’t really care what he thinks. You’ll only call for this in theory for some point-scoring. In practice, you’re happy to dismiss any argument from the left, whether you could agree with it or not. Hence, you could just ignore the hypocritical stuff along with the non-hypocritical stuff.